1. OHT 8.1 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 1 Review objectives Formal design reviews (FDRs) Participants Preparations The FDR session Post-review activities Peer reviews (inspections and walkthroughs) Participants Preparations The FDR session Post-review activities Peer review coverage Comparison of peer reviews methods Expert opinions

2. OHT 8.2 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 2 Direct objectives a. To detect analysis and design errors as well as subjects where corrections, changes and completions are required b. To identify new risks likely to affect the project. c. To locate deviations from templates, style procedures and conventions. d. To approve the analysis or design product. Approval allows the team to continue on to the next development phase. Indirect objectives a. To provide an informal meeting place for exchange of professional knowledge about methods, tools and techniques. b. To record analysis and design errors that will serve as a basis for future corrective actions.

3. OHT 8.3 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 3 DPR – Development Plan Review SRSR – Software Requirement Specification Review PDR – Preliminary Design Review DDR – Detailed Design Review DBDR – Data Base Design Review TPR – Test Plan Review STPR – Software Test Procedure Review VDR – Version Description Review OMR – Operator Manual Review SMR – Support Manual Review TRR – Test Readiness Review PRR – Product Release Review IPR – Installation Plan Review

4. OHT 8.4 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 4  Knowledge and experience in development of projects of the type reviewed  Preliminary acquaintance with the current project is not necessary.  Seniority at a level similar if not higher than that of the project leader.  A good relationship with the project leader and his team.  A position external the project team

5. OHT 8.5 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 5 Preparations for DR Preparations for DR are to be completed by all three main participants in the review:- Preparations for DR are to be completed by all three main participants in the review:- –Review leader –Review team –Development team

6. OHT 8.6 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 6 - A short presentation of the design document. - Comments made by members of the review team. - Verification and validation of comments is discussed to determine the required action items (corrections, changes and additions). - Decisions about the design product (document), which determines the project's progress · Full approval. · Partial approval. · Denial of approval.

7. OHT 8.7 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 7 a. Preparation of the DR report. The report's major sections: · A summary of the review discussions. · The decision about continuation of the project. · A full list of the required action items — corrections, changes and additions. For each action item, completion date and project team member responsible are listed. · The name(s) of the review team member(s) assigned to follow up. b. Follow up performance of the corrections and to examine the corrected sections.

8. OHT 8.8 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 8 Design Review Infrastructure · Develop checklists for common types of design documents. · Train senior professionals serve as a reservoir for DR teams. · Periodically analyze past DR effectiveness. · Schedule the DRs as part of the project plan. The Design Review Team. Review teams size should be limited, with 3–5 members being the optimum.

9. OHT 8.9 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 9 The Design Review Session Discuss professional issues in a constructive way refraining from personalizing the issues. Keep to the review agenda. Focus on detection of defects by verifying and validating the participants' comments. Refrain from discussing possible solutions. In cases of disagreement about an error - end the debate by noting the issue and shifting its discussion to another forum. Properly document the discussed comments, and the results of their verification and validation. The duration of a review session should not exceed two hours. Post-Review Activities Prepare the review report, including the action items Establish follow-up to ensure the satisfactory performance of all the list of action items

10. OHT 8.10 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 10 Review leader Review leader The author The author Specialized professionals: Specialized professionals: –Designer –Coder or implementer –Tester Review leader Review leader The author The author Specialized professionals: Specialized professionals: –Standards enforcer –Maintenance expert –User representative

11. OHT 8.11 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 11

12. OHT 8.12 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 12 Year Defect detection method Defects per 1000 lines of maintained code Test % Design review % Code inspectio n % 197785---15 0.19 197880515 0.13 19797010200.06 19806015250.05 19814030 0.04 19823040300.02

13. OHT 8.13 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 13 Sections recommended for inclusion Sections of complicated logic Sections of complicated logic Critical sections, where defects severely damage essential system capability Critical sections, where defects severely damage essential system capability Sections dealing with new environments Sections dealing with new environments Sections designed by new or inexperienced team members Sections designed by new or inexperienced team members Sections recommended for omission “Straightforward” sections (no complications) “Straightforward” sections (no complications) Sections of a type already reviewed by the team in similar past projects Sections of a type already reviewed by the team in similar past projects Sections that, if faulty, are not expected to effect functionality Sections that, if faulty, are not expected to effect functionality Reused design and code Reused design and code Repeated parts of the design and code Repeated parts of the design and code

14. OHT 8.14 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 14Properties Design review InspectionWalkthrough Overview meeting NoYesNo Participant’s preparations Yes - thorough Yes - brief Review session YesYesYes Follow-up of corrections YesYesNo Formal training of participants NoYesNo Participant’s use of checklists NoYesNo Error-related data collection Not formally required Formally required Not formally required Review documentation Formal design review report 1) Inspection session findings report 2) Inspection session summary report

15. OHT 8.15 Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 15 · Insufficient in-house professional capabilities in a specialized area. · Temporary lack of in-house professionals for review team. · Indecisiveness caused by major disagreements among the organization’s senior professionals. · In small organizations, where the number of suitable candidates for a review team is insufficient.